October 8, 2012

"And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That's terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion...."Andrew Sullivan melts down.

Look: I'm trying to rally some morale, but I've never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week...

I'm trying to see a silver lining. But when a president self-immolates on live TV, and his opponent shines with lies and smiles, and a record number of people watch, it's hard to see how a president and his party recover. I'm not giving up....

Sorry, but it's hard not to see this as a lot of posing. A set up for the big announcement that Obama is back. If Obama is any good at all in the next debate or the one after that, we'll be told the man is a miracle.

"And we are told that when Obama left the stage that night, he was feeling good. That's terrifying. On every single issue, Obama has instantly plummeted into near-oblivion...."

What a load of hysterical hooey. Obama knew he did badly when he left the stage--you can see it in his face if you look at the photographs. Moreover, the race remains close, which is hardly "near-oblivion."

Oh, for goodness sakes. It's a poll. Polls come and go, day to day. Get over it. I've played that game, of obsessing over every rise and fall, and it's not worth it. It's meaningless and it'll hurt your health.

On the other hand, Sully blowing a gasket? It's nice when nice things happen to nice people.

Ann: I agree that Sullivan has gone over the top here, but I read him as sincere.

For those who believed in Obama, and Sullivan was such a one, that debate was terrifying. The man they thought was supreme in his gifts of intelligence, oratory and political shrewdness wandered to the podium and all but drooled in front of 67 million viewers. Meanwhile, Romney, whom they believed was a Republican hack/monster excelled.

The trauma we read from the liberal side is real and worsened by Romney's coming to life in the polls.

Probably there are some cynical folks looking to game this as you say, but not that many.

Just donate to Romney or a republican of your choice, volunteer with your local groups , unless you live in a blue state, then fly , drive or bus it to a purple state, just kidding. Vote, make sure your signficate other, voting age kids all vote republican , not kidding, maybe go in the voting booth with them , make sure their not dicking you around, especially those emotional women, not too reliable,{ see Anne }.. The rest is spin and bullshit..

Lol, schadenfreude at Little Miss Sullivan. the pot-head poofta says, "I'm trying to rally some morale, but I've never seen a candidate this late in the game, so far ahead, just throw in the towel in the way Obama did last week..."

LOL!!! he wasn't that far ahead if ever ahead at all. You've been lied to along with his entire cadre of sycophants. Wallowing around holding your infected, sperm-filled head in your hands and bemoaning how terrible this is only makes me happier to know that you trying to rally morale is the equivalent of another one of your trips to Polk or Castro on a weekend cock and coke binger. You're irrelevancy is complete, you douche.

Anne, why I think their hyperventilating is a tad real, republicans are used to bad press, being mocked, so for us we're like next....

These clowns are treated with kid gloves by the media and entertainment industry , especally Obama the last 5 years... so to see Obama depicted as a joke and massive dud in the media, usely they can hide it, but because the audience was so large at least 70 million watched...... they can't deal with it being at that level, in the vernacular of pop culture, the left doesn't look at Obama and see Obama, they see a reflection of themselves, and looking like a fool, is giving these guys the shits.

Oh, for goodness sakes. It's a poll. Polls come and go, day to day. Get over it. I've played that game, of obsessing over every rise and fall, and it's not worth it. It's meaningless and it'll hurt your health.

All true, but Pew is one of the more accurate polls out there. It and Rasmussen were among the most accurate in 2008 and it's one that you set your watch to because it isn't generally seen as biased for one side or the other. Obama's drop in that poll is a real problem and is proof that he needs to get his game on now. Sullivan may be over-dramatizing the matter, but this is the poll drop that matters. And regarding Intrade, while Obama was probably overrated when he was up at 79, a 14-15 point drop isn't something to ignore.

At times like this, I adore Ann Althouse. She's the Bret Bielema of bloggers.Don't get a head of yourselves. Stick to the ground game. Focus. Block and tackle. The basics. Don't give up; don't let up. Don't let the opposition back in the game.

The President didn't "throw in the towel" -- he was challenged, and effectively, by an opponent. Said challenge exposing his weaknesses beyond the Praetorian Media's ability to conceal. A credible opponent who couldn't be forced out of the race by other means (Alice Palmer, Jack Ryan).

The last time this happened was when Obama ran against incumbent Bobby Rush in 2000 in the primary for Rush's House seat. And Rush crushed him 2-to-1.

Sullivan has been slobbing Obama's knob for four years. He's authentically disappointed and demoralized. I think he's seriously distressed that his god-like fantasy man who promised to lower oceans and heal planets is actually human.

Every six months or so I go back and review the Obamamania from 2008. The people who went crazy for Obama really went crazy. It's like nothing I can remember in American politics -- not even JFK's Camelot.

Wednesday night's debate was akin to the JFK assassination for Obama followers. It's not something that will pass in a few days or weeks.

In a recent column Victor Davis Hanson points out that Democrats are making Obama's defeat worse by wallowing in it, but the point is that they can't help themselves. As Sullivan demonstrates, they feel as though Obama personally betrayed them.

Furthermore, Sullivan's analysis is reasonable:

A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves.

Sullivan still gives Obama a chance to win and so do I. But it's going to much more work and there is no getting around the fact that Obama threw away big campaign advantages in a matter of minutes last week.

Yeah, whatever, he'll be all "Comeback Kid! WOOOOO!" as soon as the polls drift back to Obama a little bit. The idea that this manic-depressive lunatic is considered something a wise elder in political pundit circles pretty much says it all about our so-called intellectual elite.

These polls are just manipulated. The prior Pew Pool had a huge Democratic advantage in the poll sample and was registered voters.. This pew poll is R+.5 so it probably errs a little Republican (but not by much). There wasn't that big of swing. Romney was always tied or just slightly behind. THe debate probably gives him a slight lead... not a +18 swing.

Oh, for goodness sakes. It's a poll. Polls come and go, day to day. Get over it. I've played that game, of obsessing over every rise and fall, and it's not worth it. It's meaningless and it'll hurt your health.

All true, but Pew is one of the more accurate polls out there. It and Rasmussen were among the most accurate in 2008 and it's one that you set your watch to because it isn't generally seen as biased for one side or the other.

But 4 years ago is a long time. as I've said, Pew was D +19 a few weeks ago and nobody's going to believe that's accurate.

Now, having tried their best to run a psy op, maybe they're going into "let's get the real numbers out so we have some credibility for the next 4 years" mode.

They've certainly lost any credibility with me.

As for Intrade, a lot of people figure that may well have been skewed by Lefties trying to run the same psy op. As I say, these are the guys who've been betting on the wrong horse for 40 years.

I read Andrew's reaction a little differently. He spent a lot of blog time pre-debate doing two things. One was participating in the "Obama is inevitable" game, which by all accounts gave Obama a nice fundraising month. The other was writing a ridiculously over the top Newsweek cover story, "The Democrats' Ronald Reagan."

In a period of two hours, Obama managed to make Andrew look beyond silly and a prime candidate for one of Andrew's own awards for shockingly bad predictions. It was imperative for Sullivan to paint this as a great mistake of Obama. Surely, Andrew's puffing on the Obama balloon had nothing to do with the shredded rubber fragments flying about.

"If Obama is any good at all in the next debate or the one after that, we'll be told the man is a miracle."

Except, of course, there's the nagging history of failure over the last four years.

I'm somewhat surprised and dispirited otherwise intelligent people are paying more attention to the campaign than to Obama's dismal record.

Every president's second term is worse than his first; while it isn't necessarily true for the future, for this president there is no basis, absolutely none, for assuming a second Obama term will be more responsible, more prudent, more effective, more pragmatic, more centrist and more accomplished than his first term.

Voting for Obama is doubling down on failure.

If you like the present situation, or are otherwise dependent upon federal transfer payments, yeah, you're weak and stupid, but Obama is definitely your man.

"In a period of two hours, Obama managed to make Andrew look beyond silly and a prime candidate for one of Andrew's own awards for shockingly bad predictions. It was imperative for Sullivan to paint this as a great mistake of Obama. Surely, Andrew's puffing on the Obama balloon had nothing to do with the shredded rubber fragments flying about."

Sure, but over the last four years, Obama has made nearly all of his voters look silly and stupid.

Most of them don't care, as they'll turn around and vote for Obama again.

I think Sullivan cares less about his reputation (lest you think his obsession with Sarah Palin's vagina somehow rational), and more, much more, about his boy Obama winning again.

I just don't get why ANYONE was honestly surprised by Obama's performance. When he's not reading off a teleprompter, he's golfing or talking around mouthfuls of waffle about how he's 'got a lot on his plate'.

He has NOTHING on his plate. He's a gray man who's done nothing of substance while in office. He's just a place-holder president that was supposed to look good enough and talk (read) smoothly enough to distract the masses while the Pelosi's and Reids and the rest put legislative time bombs like Obamacare in key points of the American federalist infrastructure.

His blackness was supposed to shield him from criticism (with the aid of a Press quick to damn anyone who did so as a racist) and keep him in place long enough to get the ball of destruction rolling past the point of no return. Hopefully we're not that far gone yet.

Obama has done NOTHING and no one who ever read his 'resume' 4 years ago is in the least bit surprised.

Yes, we all wanted to say something nice and assume the best of 'that black man'. That's exactly what they were counting on.

They and the Weathermen and the Howard Zinn's of the world dream simply of 'blowing everything up' figuratively or otherwise, and then re-building it as some 60's hippy fantasy which, is really just another Stalinist state with paisley trim.

Most of the people pushing for this, in and out of the media, are like Andrew Sullivan, believing passionately and desperately that what they are doing is right. They've been programmed to believe the case is so dire that, for many, outright extermination of their 'enemies' (who refuse to agree with or think like them) is do some degree justified.

Many have no idea the degree of evil they're trying to unleash and won't until the scoops arrive to turn THEM into soylent green kibbles for Dolphins along with all the evil Republicans and Fundamentalist Christians..

Oh well. I guess it's all just another form of performance art, and as we all know...

I looked at the last Pew poll and it appears that the sample size there was only D+6. So they current Pew poll at R+.05 shows a massive improvement for Romney.

If you look at the internals of the poll, Romney picks up a point among independents, and Obama loses 2. Romney also loses a point among Democrat support and Obama picks up a point.

However, the most significant flucuation from the last poll is that Obama loses substantially in the support he had among republicans. He loses 5 points and Romney picks up 3 points.

What accounts for this? What Republican would switch from Obama to Romney.... is it the David Brooks of th world... Those who now think that "moderate Romney" is back.

If this is the case, we are going to be seeing a lot more "moderate Romney" from Romney and a lot more "Romney is the biggest right winger eveh" from Obama and the media.

Perhaps this is also the switch among women - women who are moderate republicans that have now abandoned Obama almost soley because of the debate. If that is the case why did they bail on him? But how does Obama get them back... or can he get them back. Will Obama's next debate be solely directed to moderate republican women who voted for him in 2008? Maybe women care more about the economy than contraception.

Perhaps Althouse can explain. She seems to be a moderate woman who voted for Obama.

The other was [Sullivan's] writing a ridiculously over the top Newsweek cover story, "The Democrats' Ronald Reagan."

In a period of two hours, Obama managed to make Andrew look beyond silly and a prime candidate for one of Andrew's own awards for shockingly bad predictions. It was imperative for Sullivan to paint this as a great mistake of Obama.

Writ Small: Well-spotted!

If Obama loses, Sullivan and many other pundit-like folk will have a tougher time finding work and holding jobs, as well as attending chi-chi cocktail parties.

Excitable Andy. Small changes are blown up to earth-shaking, tectonic events.

Yeah, he's probably setting up a "comeback" narrative, too. It's hard to imagine Obama doing any worse in later debates, unless he strangles a Golden Retriever puppy on stage, so in relative terms he can claim an improvement as long as Obama isn't allowed access to any puppies.

A reminder. The next debate is a town hall format. If Obama is to make a miraculous recovery in the debates, he would have to know what questions will be asked - and none of the questions can cover sensitive subjects such as Benghazi and Gunwalker.

Yeah, I know. Black helicopter stuff - but we are talking about the Manchurian Candidate.

I think Sullivan is legit here in his beliefs. An hour after the debate he posited that he thinks Obama may have lost the election that night.

I still view this race as a toss-up. But last Wednesday night the country saw Kris Kringle (Romney) for the first time. And he didn't appear to be the decadent toy pusher the Burgermeister (Obama) had been portraying him to be.

The children of Sombertown seemed to enjoy thinking about the possibility of playing with toys again (and things like bipartisan compromise, more jobs, deficit reduction, etc)

As delicious as it is to savor conspiracy and long-game thinking, I disagree with Althouse here as well.

It's just too much of a risk for someone to write a piece like this (along with several other people), a week after the event, with the strategy of writing a later piece based on a better debate performance, which may or may not happen. Compare all this planning a surprise party for a friend, which is hard enough to plan, or some practical jokes. The complexity is noticeable, and here we are talking about a presidency.

Also working against Althouse is the fact -- as others have pointed out -- that Sullivan is such a shrill queen.

Occam's Razor leads us to the most likely scenario: he's prancing around hysterically because he sees that Obama is just a schmuck who is about to get crushed.

After first watching the debate, I thought Obama had lost. But I had the lonely feeling that the next day I would read nothing but how Obama had triumphed and showed how much purer and greater was his vision of America. Instead, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that everyone else in the world also thought he had lost....I'm really stunned at how vituperative the people of the left are in their criticism of Obama. I remember him losing some debates to Hillary, but he was never subjected to such criticism afterwards. Can the affections of the left be this shallow and fickle?

Furthermore, while every election is different, I keep seeing parallels between Obama and previous losers.

We have Carter's presidency, for example. We have Bush I and that recession (and, even, Gulf War I and Bin Laden).

Add to all that Bush and Gore: their first debate (the last political debate I ever watched, by the way), Gore lost, according to voters. So, he got himself a bunch of advice from goofball leftist consultants and came out and really got his ass handed to him in the second debate.

You can be sure that lefty pundits exactly such as (perhaps including) Queenie Sullivan wrote hysterical post-mortems and pre-mortems after the first Bush v. Gore debate. Were they playing a long game?

Today, Jerry Sandusky blamed the victims and their families. He also seems to be tucked neatly inside his cocoon of self-denial. He didn't do it because he doesn't remember doing it. Grandiosity maybe?

This sounds a whole lot like Obama's narcissistic response to his poor debate performance. He didn't know he was in trouble until Moochelle told him onstage after the debate.

I'll put it this way: if Obama purposefully was beyond awful in the first debate, given that he looked up until that very moment to be pulling away with a lead and building momentum to an easy win -- if he calculated that he needed to fail, and if it all works out, well...

(1) He's a brilliant politician who deserves to be president.

(2) You have to question his strategy: why throw a debate when you are winning the election? Why make it close?

(3) He's a sadist who appreciates torturing his opponents like a cat bats at a dying mouse.

Which is it?

It's none of the above. Obama got beat, soundly, and humanized for people like Sullivan who still thought he was some sort of god, and now Sullivan and his ilk are apoplectic with fear, disillusion, and frustration.

It's been four long years defending his broken promises, war escalating, golfing, vacationing, laziness, unforced errors, only to find the emperor really has no clothes. It seems to be a last straw kind of a thing.

Witness the love turned to hate over the course of Bush's presidency. Say what you will about Bush, who had his good points and his bad points, love him or hate him... W. always remained pretty much the same guy, the same POTUS.

Yes, circumstances changed and events developed, and it's perfectly fair to change one's mind about a politician and/or his policies, to be disappointed and become more critical, and even abandon them or a party.

But Sullivan turned on Bush (and Republicans) with the fury of a scorned lover. A fury later directed, insanely, at Sarah Palin, for no rational reason at all.

So too Sullivan's love for Obama seems more than, something other than, just a matter of political or ideological affinity.

Actually, the fact that Sullivan still somehow claims to be a "conservative"-- does he really?-- shows that he's mentally operating in a fantasy realm where standard political/ideological markers don't apply, are completely at sea, topsy turvy, to be redefined at will, so that e.g. Obama is just like Reagan.

Maybe it is all about gay marriage for Sullivan, and all his political-ideological affinities and antagonisms ultimately revolve and reconstitute themselves around that single point. I don't know, because I don't read him anymore.

In one of his books Solzhenitsyn describes a Tsarist officer standing on a pickle barrel to deliver a stirring speech to his troops as to why they should support the Tsar and not the Reds, now openly in revolt.

The barrel top breaks, sending the officer into the pickles and brine and instantly transforming him, from a figure of authority to one of ridicule.

The assembled soldiers jeer, shoot their officer, and desert their Sovereign to join the Revolution.

That's what Andy is afraid has happened here, that Barack's zealous supporters--seeing him suddenly bereft of his charisma and authority--abandon him by the millions.

People forget what a supporter, of George W. Bush and the Iraq War, Sulivan was once upon a time. And now, as yashu points out, Sullivan is not.

Sullivan wasn't laying the groundwork then to emerge later as a chastened conservative against the Iraq War and for Barack Obama. Similarly I don't believe he is fashioning a Comeback narrative for Obama.

For my money, Prof. Althouse is overthinking Sullivan and finding more complex, darker motivation than is there.

Likewise, when she questions whether Obama wants to be president, or whether conservatives such as Limbaugh, Drudge, et al. are racists.

Sometimes, more often than not actually, what you see is what you get.

wholelottasplainin' said...In one of his books Solzhenitsyn describes a Tsarist officer standing on a pickle barrel to deliver a stirring speech to his troops as to why they should support the Tsar and not the Reds, now openly in revolt.

The barrel top breaks, sending the officer into the pickles and brine and instantly transforming him, from a figure of authority to one of ridicule.

The assembled soldiers jeer, shoot their officer, and desert their Sovereign to join the Revolution.

Actually, it's from the David Lean's film version "Doctor Zhivahgo"(sic) by Boris Pastornak

Picking on Sully reminds me of the "fisking" Tim Blair used to mete out to Robert Fisk on a weekly basis. After a while you wonder "Why even bother everyone knows he's a fool". He jumped the shark in 2008 with his weirdo, Palin/Trigg, obsession. He'll never recover from that.

I see a lot of parallels also between this situation and the Supreme Court oral arguments on Obamacare. We were assured that Obamacare was a slam dunk under the Commerce Clause. 9-0, it would be, or maybe 8-1 because of Thomas.

Then, the government's case got demolished in oral argument and we were treated to months of hand-wringing and great lamentation about the end of Obamacare, and life as we knew it.

Of course, the Supremes did find Obamacare unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, but (rightly, I think) constitutional as a tax.

The left cocoons, to its detriment. Its shibboleths are clearly not in tune with the beliefs of most Americans, and reality is not its friends.

And thankfully, we don't have nine law nerds deciding the 2012 election.

creeley brings up a good point: Sullivan wasn't just a strong Bush supporter, he was one of the most passionate advocates in favor of the Iraq War and the "Bush Doctrine." So when he turned on the GOP, it wasn't just about turning on Bush, but violently repudiating some of his own past self, his past views and writings-- and in particular, his own passionate belief in and commitment to (some part of) a POTUS's policies.

(NB IIRC many of the same policies at one point he execrated under Bush he defended under Obama.)

Maybe someday, to some extent, he'll repudiate Obama and his own past Obama worship, too. I doubt it, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if he did.

PS I will always have some residual gratitude to Sullivan because he was one of the key figures who "turned me on" to the political blogosphere, and played a significant role in my post 9/11 political Bildungsroman.

Sullivan's later Palin insanity (among other things) put him beyond the pale, for me, as a respectable political pundit.

But. My memory fails me now, I'm not sure whether I first became aware of (and was affected by) Sullivan or Reynolds (Instapundit) as political bloggers. By fallible memory, Sullivan may well have been first and/or in any case more powerful as a blogger. Certainly both of them preceded my acquaintance with Althouse (presently probably the blog I'm most personally engaged with).

Whatever my present political/ ideological views, and however those views might develop in the future, I underwent an "awakening"-- in large part due to a new form of technology, independent from the MSM-- that changed me (though at that moment I was searching for and receptive to such a change), and transformed how I see the world and political reality (as opposed to the MSM representation of reality), for life.

If Obama didn't think he did fine at the debates, why would advisors tell several outlets that he did? It isn't flattering to him, and it doesn't create some sort of advantage. The simple answer is its true.

And as exiledonmainst says, unsurprising. This is, after all, a man who often seems testy and peevish, yet seems to think he's doing a great job as president.

If the lefties declare Biden did well in the debate better than Ryan and so on, would that not upstage Obama? How can plugs do better than Obama, the magical orator? Oh, the bind Obama put them in. Yet, this may be the most consequential VP debate ever.

I claim to row a lot faster than I really do. I hit 14 km/h Sunday. My upper body was like a sail in the strong wind.

Unaided by wind, my fastest times are in the summer, when the water is warmer, less viscous, and more slippery. 12.2 km/h is my top speed this season.

That's pretty good for an open water shell that is broader in the beam...like me. A racing shell would make my butt look big. On my lakes, I'd be swimming half the time, flipped from the wake of the waterskiers. The Maas Aero is perfect for my conditions.

Somefeller said--"while Obama was probably overrated when he was up at 79, a 14-15 point drop isn't something to ignore.

Probably?

JAL said--"I read that as"Obama was instantly pummeled into near-oblivion...."

Honestly, I did too ;-)

Marshall said--"Maybe, but when it becomes clear Obama's going to lose the activists will turn on Obama. After all, the problem could not be with leftism itself so it must be Obama

Exactly. The mantra of the left about the fall of communism has ever been "The right people weren't in charge". Meaning themselves. As if the entire communist bloc had no one that was a "true believer", everyone they had was juts power hungry...now. Before the fall of communism, everyone they had was just peachy-fucking keen to these people.

If you don't believe me, ask Hollywood about Castro, or Chavez. When these 2 "great" icons of the people fall with thousands of deaths on their hands, it will be because they got used communism to accrue money and power, they were evil to start off, and not that communism is an inherently evil system.

Ps.

That doesn't mean the media will be wrong portraying the ol' dogs of communism as being evil from the start. Anyone who pushes communism is in point of fact, an evil person.

And for the next commy to suggest that Jesus was a communist, I want them to point out to me where in the beatitudes communism was espoused.

I've said this since debate night: Obama literally cannot do worse than lose on every single exchange and have his own campaign admit he was lying for the first half hour over that $5 trillion accusation. -Any- performance at the next debate will be better (see: regression toward the mean), so be ready for the spin.

"Unaided by wind, my fastest times are in the summer, when the water is warmer, less viscous, and more slippery. 12.2 km/h is my top speed this season."

No lakes worth the name here, so I use a Concept2. I have only rarely done 10K in 45 minutes or under. It's mostly just a way to stay in shape for the job that's left to me, professional river boatman on the Middle Fork and Main Salmon. But KL, with the passage of years the tolerance for boredom attenuates. I can hardly bear to sit in a darkened room pulling on a stick for the better part of an hour. Now exercise is governed by the 15 minute rule: no matter how long you decide to exercise it is 15 minutes longer than you can keep up interest.

I suspect it is pretty cheap to influence intrade. At one time the sum of asks for Obama and Romney was less than $10.00, which in that case it meant you could make money by purchasing equal shares of romney and Obama.

Right now, there is 1 share for Obama asking $6.33, 3 asking $6.29, and 43 shares for both Romney and asks and bids at $3.70/$3.68.

The point is, it is probably not too hard to influence intrade when the trading is so low.

Yashu said--"PS I will always have some residual gratitude to Sullivan because he was one of the key figures who "turned me on" to the political blogosphere, and played a significant role in my post 9/11 political Bildungsroman.

Don't feel too bad. I used to read "LittleGreenFootballs" religiously, until he went full bat shit crazy. I'll read a blog from the other side if it makes a valid point, but there's no need to subject yourself to the bat shit craziness. Not worth it.

Sullivan was never anyone I read with any regularity. Just never cared for him. Now if Michelle Malkin ever turned to the dark side...but you have to remember that most of what is written is done so to draw attention to the writer first and foremost. So the one that is loudest at yelling "Look at me!" get's the hits. I don't read blogs of people who yell "look at me"

Obama is the guy who keeps saying he trusts his ability to make his case to the American people. That's what he says he plans to do the next 4 years if Congress doesn't work with him- take his case to the American people so he can work over Congress's heads.

Sullivan's having one of the greatest days a blogger's ever had. The headline on Drudge, the first thing mentioned in Rush's opening monologue, over 15 thousand Facebook likes for one post, his own readers in a frenzy of dissent. What more could a blogger ask for?